vanished

It's certainly a smart move for them at the moment.  Whether that's the long term focus I couldn't say, but the needs and restrictions of the mobile environment lines up nicely to take advantage of what they can do well and hide what they can't.  Not perfectly mind you, but it's the best option imo

The real question is not what will 10 nm look like but how long will it take them?  At this rate it could easily still be a year or two away, and I'd take any claims from Intel about timeline with a huge mound of salt at best.  Just look back over the last 4 years at how many times they said they'd have it by year X and then missed it.  It's also reasonable to expect them to make claims that stretch the truth just to stop people (shareholders) from panicking and realizing how bad they really have it.  They've been doing that for quite a while already, sadly to seemingly decent success.
 
As for how it will do, I've heard that due to 14nm+++++ being so well optimized that 10 nm isn't going to even offer any meaningful improvement anymore, and may even incur a clockspeed regression.  We're certainly seeing this on the mobile side so far.  The only thing Intel has going for them currently is a tiny single-threaded lead.  If they lose that to Zen 3, which they almost certainly will if improvements aren't made, they will have nothing.  That means they're stuck pushing 8 cores harder, because if they go for 10 and are forced to drop clockspeeds, that's exactly what's going to happen.  Either way though they fail to make any meaningful progress at catching up.  AMD has more multi-threaded, more efficiency, less cost, more memory bandwidth, more PCIe bandwidth, fewer security issues, and basically everything else going for them right now.
 
Intel's only good market is in the mobile space because AMD's offerings there are a generation behind and only target the mid-low end.  It's going to be many years before Intel can hope to compete in the high-end desktop and server space again, so their best chance is to keep pushing for gaming supremacy while they work on a broader solution (their own ryzen, or sandy bridge 2.0) to the rest of their issues that will let them actually compete with and beat AMD.

Remember all those people telling you that you're paranoid for saying something about [brand] and suddenly receiving ads for [brand] everywhere?
Well...
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/11/19/android-camera-security-vulnerability/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/google-samsung-fix-android-spying-flaw-other-makers-may-still-be-vulnerable/
 
This wouldn't really be an issue if all Android devices received regular updates. ?
This of course calls into question just how this might be/have been used, and if there are other similar "bugs" in Android (or iOS).

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Romer G ?

related I guess?
 

https://www.amazon.ca/Logitech-G613-LIGHTSPEED-Mechanical-Connectivity-920-008386/dp/B07796MBJ7/
 
 

https://www.amazon.ca/Logitech-G613-LIGHTSPEED-Mechanical-Connectivity-920-008386/dp/B07796MBJ7/
 
 

in b4 "when you move but the algorithm thought you should go the otherway" meme

I'm not sure how many people actually bought into the "OMG THE FUTURE" claims.  Google was making them, but was anyone listening?  When I first saw the "negative latency" headline I literally lol'd and joked "they must be using AI to predict your movements to make them before you do", knowing it was 110% sarcasm, only to later realize that's actually what the plan was.  I'd imagine most people on here probably reacted similarly, though perhaps they were able to fool the less tech-minded.  Then there were the claims that it can do things "not possible on a local machine", and that's certainly more interesting and more believable, but anything times 0 is still 0...

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Yeah this was tested on the source's gigabit corporate connection.  If that's not enough I'd not expect many home users to be able to do better.  Certainly bandwidth and latency are different things but I expect they aren't running off a satellite.

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

I'm not sure how many people actually bought into the "OMG THE FUTURE" claims.  Google was making them, but was anyone listening?  When I first saw the "negative latency" headline I literally lol'd and joked "they must be using AI to predict your movements to make them before you do", knowing it was 110% sarcasm, only to later realize that's actually what the plan was.  I'd imagine most people on here probably reacted similarly, though perhaps they were able to fool the less tech-minded.  Then there were the claims that it can do things "not possible on a local machine", and that's certainly more interesting and more believable, but anything times 0 is still 0...

For anyone interested, the link is here as far as I can tell: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/11/google-stadia-might-be-gamings-future-but-in-the-present-it-looks-rough/
 
Unfortunately, I can take their claims with a grain of salt at best.  They included no video to prove the latency claims, and (I believe for good reason) I make a point of never trusting anyone's subjective opinion of performance, whether it's "enough fps", "smooth with no stutter", or "no perceptible latency", reason being a) I think many people are not up to my standard, and b) frankly I wouldn't even trust myself because these things can sometimes be hard to measure without an objective reading.  For further reasoning, just consider the Washington Post article where they called the mobile experience "barely any latency", despite the fact it's clearly unplayable.
 
For all I know perhaps Ars really did have a good time, but I can't know that for certain based on the content of their review.

Yeah ti's definitely a concern that this could just disappear overnight, and then what for people who paid?
Even if it sticks around though, providing a much worse experience for much higher prices has never rarely been a successful business model.  If they're smart they may be able to pull it off, but it's far from a foregone conclusion.

Yeah this was tested on the source's gigabit corporate connection.  If that's not enough I'd not expect many home users to be able to do better.  Certainly bandwidth and latency are different things but I expect they aren't running off a satellite.

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Reviews are starting to pop up about Google's new service, and they're not good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/
 
Here we can see a game tested using Google Stadia on PC and I dare anyone to call this playable:

I measured the first jump at ~650 ms.
 
Mobile is not much better (though the article disagrees for some reason).  See for yourself:

I measured this at 270 ms in photoshop.  Yes it's better, but still completely unusable.
 
As they say, it's early days and there is opportunity to improve, but it just goes to show this is not a miracle product and still suffers from all the pitfalls of game streaming, most notably at this time, latency.
 

Doesn't the concept of forced obsolescence imply or require the company killing off an otherwise current, non-obsolete product to push people to a newer one?  If they dropped driver support for Z170 boards I'd agree completely but this is hardware from the 90s.  It was already well beyond obsolete on its own before Intel made this decision.

I noticed it easily just by watching the video, that's what made me curious enough to check frame by frame just so it could be quantified.  If it works for you that's great, just giving my view of it.